Author
Topic: ParkingPlaces and Death Over Life Debate Jesus (Read 4205 times)

This is the debate thread for ParkingPlaces and Death Over Life to debate the subject of Jesus. Please do not post in this thread unless you are ParkingPlaces, Death Over Life or are serving in a debate moderator capacity.

The Jesus story is obviously looked at in vastly different ways by believers and non-believers. The center of the Christian faith, to say he is revered is like saying the ocean is somewhat wet. Both are understatements.

The reasons a Christian believes the story(ies) told in the Gospels are very difficult for me to understand. The my reasons for dismissing the tale are equally hard for a Christian to fathom. For masochistic reasons, Death over Life and I have decided to have a discussion/debate/WWF type grudge match on the subject. Both of us will feel free to discuss everything from his historicity to the improbability of his existence. I don’t think DoL is going to get too heavy into his teachings unless is it to make a point. Obviously preaching here is a sin but that’s up to him.

Nobody can dispute the influence the character of Jesus has had on the Christian faith. The name of the religion itself emphasizes that quite adequately. But as an atheist, one of the gods I don’t believe in the the god of the Christian bible, and hence his kid carries no weight with me either. I did not become an atheist because of just Christianity, but presumably I find enough of the Jesus story fishy to not swallow it. To avoid my normal walls of text, I will start this debate by listing a short list of issues I have with Jesus’ legitimacy (hmmm, that might be a pun).

1. Jesus is given credit for actions that sound mythic, like many a god before him. Walking on water, healing by touch, the loafs and fishes thing, and the resurrection, among others. These make for a good story, but for me such claims need more than casual substantiation, and I have heard none.2. Very little valid historical record exists to confirm his existence. The writings of Roman official and historian Tacitus mentions a “Christus” who was crucified by Pontius Pilot, and says that the Christians blamed by Emporer Nero in around 60 CE for the Roman fire, and who were subsequently killed, were followers of his. And Josephus, a one-time Jewish general who fought the Romans before the temple was burned in 70 CE, and who then managed to become a favorite of the Roman emperors and later wrote a book on Judaic antiquites, included mention of Jesus. However, many historians feel that the respectful sounding portions of that text were added by a Roman Catholic priest named Eusiebus three hundred years later. Given that Josephus mentions all other “messiahs” in his book with distain (he was a big supporter of the legitimacy of the Roman government) but talks of Jesus as if he was a great guy, some of his words may well have been from Eusiebus.3. Small details, like the census being taken by the Romans at the time of his birth. Not likely. There is no record of it happening, and to think that people would have to return to the towns of their birth that their families left a hundred years earlier is a bit crazy. It can even be argued that the author of Luke made up his birth in Bethlehem. So the bible itself may not be conveying historically accurate material. Not good for the inerrant word of God.

I will stop this first post here. I’ve got a million of ‘em, but I’ll go easy for now. DoL was given this post earlier so that he could have his response to this ready and post it quickly. I didn't want our readers to have to wait long. If all goes as planned, we're now off and running.

The Jesus story is obviously looked at in vastly different ways by believers and non-believers. The center of the Christian faith, to say he is revered is like saying the ocean is somewhat wet. Both are understatements.

The reasons a Christian believes the story(ies) told in the Gospels are very difficult for me to understand. The my reasons for dismissing the tale are equally hard for a Christian to fathom. For masochistic reasons, Death over Life and I have decided to have a discussion/debate/WWF type grudge match on the subject. Both of us will feel free to discuss everything from his historicity to the improbability of his existence. I don’t think DoL is going to get too heavy into his teachings unless is it to make a point, but that’s up to him.

Breaking this portion down. Being a Sadomasochist myself, I find this to be very engaging for expressing the differing of views in hopes of learning, growing, and maturing.

WWF grudge match eh? Well, judging from the forums, I shall be the heel and you are the face. Does this mean we get to introduce ourselves with some theme music? If so, this is my theme/video:

1. Jesus is given credit for actions that sound mythic, like many a god before him. Walking on water, healing by touch, the loafs and fishes thing, and the resurrection, among others. These make for a good story, but for me such claims need more than casual substantiation, and I have heard none.

And here is what I say. I agree they make for a good story, but unlike the faiths of others, Jesus’ entire faith (Christianity) rests on the resurrection, not even necessarily His’ life. If you can really disprove the resurrection, then you have effectively disproven Christianity.

It is said in 1 Corinthians 15:12-22 by Paul

12 But if Christ is preached that he has risen from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, vain then both what we preached, and vain also your faith: 15 further, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that he raised up Christ whom lie did not raise, if indeed then the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised; 17 but if Christ has not been raised, fruitless your faith, you are yet in your sins: 18 then also those that have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If only in this life we have been hoping in Christ, more miserable than all men are we. 20 But now has Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those that have slept. 21 For since through man death, through man also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Now, the fact that I was able to post that actually shows that the claims ParkingPlaces has made have been accused at Christ and Christianity all throughout history. Anyways, Paul says it himself: no resurrection = vain preachings, vain faith, and we are more miserable than all men ever, if Christ indeed is a lie and did not rise from the dead.

Because of this, if I were to go on to miracles, I would concentrate on this. Now, before we begin, here is the dictionary definition of miracle:

So, even if you don’t believe in divine intervention, a miracle is still an extremely outstanding or unusual event, as there has never been recorded any individual human to simply raise themselves from the dead themselves (except for the story of Jesus). This is different than being revived from the dead.

Now, how we get to this area to know if this is a hoax or real, we must turn to NT Scholars who have studied, verified, and researched the NT and it’s accuracy, reliability, and historical reverence.

Since I made this on resurrection, I shall make it simply on this.

Rather than write down opinions and such, I will use the words of Scholars.

To begin with, I shall say that according to Geza Vermes, a Jewish Scholar, he has declared "When every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that . . . the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb" (Jesus the Jew, p. 41).

In addition, with the claim, every NT Scholar who has researched the historicity of the resurrection, almost all of them have come to these 4 conclusions:

(1) Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea, (2) the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb by some of his female followers, (3) the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups, and (4) the original disciples' coming sincerely to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their strong predisposition to the contrary are historical.

Remember, not all of these scholars are Christians, nor did some of them convert to Christianity, however, they all agree with those 4 points, which none contradict, and instead compliment the Biblical testimony of the resurrection.

2. Very little valid historical record exists to confirm his existence. The writings of Roman official and historian Tacitus mentions a “Christus” who was crucified by Pontius Pilot, and says that the Christians blamed by Emporer Nero in around 60 CE for the Roman fire, and who were subsequently killed, were followers of his. And Josephus, a one-time Jewish general who fought the Romans before the temple was burned in 70 CE, and who then managed to become a favorite of the Roman emperors and later wrote a book on Judaic antiquites, included mention of Jesus. However, many historians feel that the respectful sounding portions of that text were added by a Roman Catholic priest named Eusiebus three hundred years later. Given that Josephus mentions all other “messiahs” in his book with distain (he was a big supporter of the legitimacy of the Roman government) but talks of Jesus as if he was a great guy, some of his words may well have been from Eusiebus.

While it is True that there is indeed little evidence that supports the existence, that actually means that there IS evidence to support the existence. Even with that being said, there are Christian artifacts and symbols found within caves and such to help show off evidence of such.

Now, while there is the possibility of Eusiebus writing in a few things. Before I guarantee this though, I would like to know if we have Josephus’ original writings in comparison to the accusation at hand.

Anyways, even if such were True, you still have Tacitus to deal with, who was indeed an anti-Christian during that time. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Tacitus was only into the official Roman government history. So this will say to me, if Jesus is a lie, what is somebody like Tacitus doing mentioning and bringing validity to this Christ? If Jesus was a lie, why wouldn’t he be ignoring Christ and go and just mention Nero instead?

We have more than Josephus and Tacitus, we also have Mara Bar-Serapion as well. Although He does not state Jesus specifically by name, every thing He writes about Christ (which I will admit is very little) can only be acquainted with Christ, since He was the only proclaimed King to die by His’ own people’s wishes. Here is the letter for proof:

3.Small details, like the census being taken by the Romans at the time of his birth. Not likely. There is no record of it happening, and to think that people would have to return to the towns of their birth that their families left a hundred years earlier is a bit crazy. It can even be argued that the author of Luke made up his birth in Bethlehem. So the bible itself may not be conveying historically accurate material. Not good for the inerrant word of God.

I think I should add some commentary and corrections here before digging in. To begin with, the language in this one is unlike the rest of the points (and once or twice you did use this in the other points). In this, you use words like not likely, it can be argued, may not be, and under this context, you are correct. There is always the possibilities of such things. Just like there are still possibilities that Holocaust deniers (illegal in Germany btw) could in fact be right, despite the evidence against them. Possibilities are not really reliable arguments when concerning historical events, otherwise, everything is possible and nothing is set in stone.

There is no record of the census being taken by the Romans at the time of the birth. If this is True, we are at a paradox. How did you discover this accusation to begin with, if there was no record of it? You discovered this from the Gospel of Luke, which is a document/record. So then I would shift to: is the Gospel of Luke’s account of the census being taken by the Romans at the time of Jesus’ birth reliable? Sure, this would be hearsay, but from what I’ve read, most, if not all, NT Scholars agree that Luke is a reliable document/record that does coincide with History.

Now, getting more into the claim, let us say beyond the shout of a doubt you are correct. What does this do to the Gospel message exactly? Nothing. It does not show Jesus was never born, it does not show Jesus is a myth, it just shows that there was no census being taken by the Romans. The point of that message was not about the Roman census, but instead about the birth of Christ, which even Scientists who have studied History, regard Jesus as an actual entity/person, and not a myth. Miracle claims, is an entirely different story, but whether I am right, or you are right on that, it doesn’t change Jesus being a historical figure as opposed to a myth.

You are correct in that it can be argued, that Luke made up Jesus’ birthplace as Bethlehem. It can be argued that the WWII Holocaust never happened. Now, determining absolutes instead of thoughts, it goes back to the reliability of the documents and sources.

Yes, both Matthew and Luke have had influences from Mark, but Mark did not have all the information that Matthew and Luke have, like Jesus’ birth for example. Where did they get the ideas especially since they did not co-exist with each other while writing their Gospels, yet come to the same facts with each other, yet not present in Mark? The answer is, could be hearsay from other believers, could be some documents that have been destroyed. Overall, they have garnered information from somewhere other than Mark, yet was highly accurate and historical. Even if it is just hearsay and thought, it is kind of interesting since the authors of Matthew and Luke were not around each other at all and bore no influence to one another during the writing process of Matthew and Luke, yet have much of the same information.

As I said before, I don’t particularly view the Bible as God’s personal hand-written book. I view the Bible as a collection of documents/records/letters of individuals during that time who were simply informing people what they professed. Are there little tidbits that contradict or seemingly contradict? Yes. We are all humans, flaw is a nature of humanity, even under perfectionism. However, those little tidbits, do not destroy any message conveyed in the Bible concerning the authenticity of an event happening.

I will stop this first post here. I’ve got a million of ‘em, but I’ll go easy for now. DoL was given this post earlier so that he could have his response to this ready and post it quickly. I didn't want our readers to have to wait long. If all goes as planned, we're now off and running.

Anyways, even if such were True, you still have Tacitus to deal with, who was indeed an anti-Christian during that time. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Tacitus was only into the official Roman government history. So this will say to me, if Jesus is a lie, what is somebody like Tacitus doing mentioning and bringing validity to this Christ? If Jesus was a lie, why wouldn’t he be ignoring Christ and go and just mention Nero instead?

A nice long posts that will take me awhile to respond to. But a quickie response to the above statement. Tacitus was a Roman offical and a historian. He was writing about Nero, not about christians. Like all historians of his time and culture, he had an agenda, and his was that he disliked Nero very much. He was listing the many crimes of Nero. And one of them was Nero's burning of a section of Rome that he wanted for other purposes, and blaming the christians for the fire to take the heat off of himself, so to speak. After blaming them, he subjected many innocent christians to horrible, torturous deaths.

Tacitus felt that it was very wrong for Nero to have killed innocent christians. He brought of "Christos" to explain who the christians were and why they were different rather than to give validity to the person of their worship.

And this person named Christos may or may not have been the son of god. The Tacitus document states only that a person with that name lived and created a following.

I'll probably concentrate on the Paul thing. Obviously he was big on the resurrection. So much so that he very seldom mentioned any of the teachings of Jesus. Just that he popped back up after death. And how important that was. And the sin thing. And salvation.

Anyways, even if such were True, you still have Tacitus to deal with, who was indeed an anti-Christian during that time. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Tacitus was only into the official Roman government history. So this will say to me, if Jesus is a lie, what is somebody like Tacitus doing mentioning and bringing validity to this Christ? If Jesus was a lie, why wouldn’t he be ignoring Christ and go and just mention Nero instead?

A nice long posts that will take me awhile to respond to. But a quickie response to the above statement. Tacitus was a Roman offical and a historian. He was writing about Nero, not about christians. Like all historians of his time and culture, he had an agenda, and his was that he disliked Nero very much. He was listing the many crimes of Nero. And one of them was Nero's burning of a section of Rome that he wanted for other purposes, and blaming the christians for the fire to take the heat off of himself, so to speak. After blaming them, he subjected many innocent christians to horrible, torturous deaths.

Tacitus felt that it was very wrong for Nero to have killed innocent christians. He brought of "Christos" to explain who the christians were and why they were different rather than to give validity to the person of their worship.

And this person named Christos may or may not have been the son of god. The Tacitus document states only that a person with that name lived and created a following.

I'll probably concentrate on the Paul thing. Obviously he was big on the resurrection. So much so that he very seldom mentioned any of the teachings of Jesus. Just that he popped back up after death. And how important that was. And the sin thing. And salvation.

Gotta go find me a bible.

Don't know what I'll say, but I probably won't be too supportive.

More to follow.

This portion has to be one of the fastest debates ever. We do have much to cover, but I’ll give my thoughts on this.

To begin with, thank you for the information you also have garnered, and thus we basically agree here about Tacitus.

However, we must keep in mind the points that we speak of. The accusation at hand (at least with much of the board) was that Jesus Christ actually never existed or is a myth who never lived. That was the point that I was making with Josephus, Tacitus, and Mara Bar-Serapion.

And under the context of this portion of the debate: May we come to the conclusion that there was a Christos who did exist as opposed to a myth who did not exist? This would show that Christ is indeed real, but now we must tackle the miracle claims.

Now it must be shown if what is said about Christ/Christos is valid or myth, but at least He really did exist instead of His existence being questioned. May we agree here?

This is what I meant by this portion has to be one of the fastest debates ever.

Also, if you are interested in finding a Bible, just so we can be on level playing fields, I’ll give you my Bible Sources:

Something or someone or some group started christianity. If someone named Christos was involved, I'm personally not all that surprised. Our genes for things like Bieber-fever have been around a long time.

Obviously the thing we are not agreeing on is the divinity, and later the resurrection, of this Christos character. Tacitus said he existed in a history of Nero's reign. Paul said he existed in his biblical contribution. But whether actual or mythical, christianity sprang from the roots of his story.

For christianity to grow from a small group to it's present position as one of the worlds largest religions (ignoring the many divisive groupings) took either divine intervention and dedicated followers or a string of happenstances and dedicated followers. Given that dedicated followers don't actually require things that they follow to be real (neither of us is debating the truthiness of islam or hinduism or zoroastrianism), it is the divinity of your Jesus character and the story of his resurrection that concerns us.

Corinthians 1 and 2 exist because Paul was having a hard time getting his new religion to take. The church he had started in Corinth was in trouble, and dealing with many a divisive pressure. Different factions forming, and worse yet, moral principals laid down by Paul as per the teachings of Jesus were being ignored. In fairness, his effort to spread the message outside of Judea was big job. It's not surprising it didn't go well. Real religions with real gods might somehow get help from, oh, I don't know, that real god. But well-meaning but false religions (i.e., all of them) have it rougher at times. Because made up stuff lacks inherent stickiness.

But he had to stay on message, and his biggest message was that by golly, you were born a sinner (a new concept to me) and if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and savior, you're toast. That's the modern version because it's unnatural for me to number each verse of my writings.

Of course Paul comes right out and says he saw Jesus after the resurrection. That's nice. I can't figure out the politics of leaving him out of the gospels though. As oversights go, that's a biggie. All these different stories about how it happened and no mention of a key figure in the religion being in the neighborhood. The whole gospel resurrection story told in the writings of Paul is built on and embellished in the gospels but they leave him out. I find this strange, but it proves nothing. Nor does it disprove anything.

You said:

Quote

If you can really disprove the resurrection, then you have effectively disproven Christianity.

Let me work on that. Granted, thousands of scholars, both pro and anti your Jesus story, have failed to prove it either way, but I'm pretty sure I'll come up with something by the end of the week .

You are impressed that christianity succeeded, and I am not. You are so impressed that you believe what you read in your bible. And I do not. Christianity had several attributes that apparently helped it along, despite the fact that it was and is just as false a religion as jainism an scientology.

So while you're oohing and aahing of 1st Corinthians, I'm paying attention to those attributes. They include:1: Christianity was big on caring for the poor. Though somehow lost to modern American fundamentalists, this was very appealing to early peoples, because like today (post housing bubble), most folks were poor. You can counter and say of course god cares for the poor. And I can counter and say he sure drowned a lot of poor folks once. But the humans in christianity at that time took the lessons of Jesus to heart, including the importance of the impoverished. Kindness worked in their favor.2: Christians proselytize. They always have. Though they diss science whenever it's convenient, the invention of the doorbell was probably seen as divine intervention. And though early christians had none to ring, they still went around spreading the word. What Paul was doing by taking his religious teachings our of Judea was not a normal thing. Romans might chop up your kids and rape your wife, but they didn't run around insisting that you get all hot and bothered about Minerva and Apollo. Most religions of the time respected other cultures gods, even as they beat them into submission and enslaved them. But not the christians.3: They were flexible. Paul was pretty adamant about things like sex. If you're gonna get laid you'd better get married. But if you want to eat foods dedicated to false gods, go for it. No biggie. And later on, when christians were trying to get people hooked on one god and one god only, they gave in and started creating patron saints, one for sailors and one for sheepherders, etc., to make up for the lost gods that provided similar assistance. I find it ironic that that christians are more flexible than yogi's.

Put 200 little kids at one end of a football field and have them race to the other. Someone is going to win. In hindsight we can all sit around, watching the YouTube video and declaring that the winner had the latest footwear offered by Nike, or the longest legs, or the most determination. But the bottom line is that someone was going to win unless they all got lost and couldn't get good directions. Some religions was going to win the religion wars, and for western civilization, it happened to be christianity.

Sadly my day is ending and I must sleep. I shall return tomorrow and respond to more of your words. And give you more to respond to.

PP

Edit: Fixed Freudian slip. Typed "sin" instead of "win" in the next to last paragraph. I'll talk to my shrink about it.

(1) Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea, (2) the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb by some of his female followers, (3) the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups, and (4) the original disciples' coming sincerely to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their strong predisposition to the contrary are historical.

I've heard nothing from DoL for several days and am beginning to assume that this attempt at a debate is over. I'm not in the mood to wait forever for responses and I assume nobody else is either.

It's not. I apologize for the huge delay. Whenever you make something that makes me need to think, it may take a little bit. I pmed you btw. Just give it until tomorrow. There will be a response by then. I honestly wish I could dedicate more time than what I have given.

Corinthians 1 and 2 exist because Paul was having a hard time getting his new religion to take. The church he had started in Corinth was in trouble, and dealing with many a divisive pressure. Different factions forming, and worse yet, moral principals laid down by Paul as per the teachings of Jesus were being ignored. In fairness, his effort to spread the message outside of Judea was big job. It's not surprising it didn't go well. Real religions with real gods might somehow get help from, oh, I don't know, that real god. But well-meaning but false religions (i.e., all of them) have it rougher at times. Because made up stuff lacks inherent stickiness.

So, you are saying here that if there is division or differing thoughts occur within a certain view, then it is false?

If so then, I guess atheism is up the same tree Christianity is because atheists can’t agree on anything amongst themselves other than there is no proof of a God.

And you guys say Christians can’t agree on anything?

Since you wish to bring up division, let me explain the settings of Corinth and Corinthians.

Corinth was the meeting point of many nationalities because the main current of the trade between Asia and western Europe passed through its harbors. Paul's first visit lasted nearly two years and his converts were mainly Greeks. Some time before 1 Cor. 2 was written he paid them a second visit (2 Cor. 12: 14; 2 Cor. 13: 1) to check some rising disorder (2 Cor. 2: 1; 2 Cor. 13: 2), and wrote them a letter, now lost (1 Cor. 5: 9). They had also been visited by Apollos (Acts 18: 27), perhaps by Peter (1 Cor. 1: 12), and by some Jewish Christians who brought with them letters of commendation from Jerusalem (1 Cor. 1: 12; 2 Cor. 3: 1; 2 Cor. 5: 16; 2 Cor. 11: 23).

Paul wrote this letter to correct what he saw as erroneous views in the Corinthian church. Several sources informed Paul of conflicts within the church at Corinth: Apollos (Acts 19:1), a letter from the Corinthians, the "household of Chloe," and finally Stephanas and his two friends who had visited Paul (1:11; 16:17). Paul then wrote this letter to the Corinthians, urging uniformity of belief ("that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you," 1:10) and expounding Christian doctrine. Titus and a brother whose name is not given were probably the bearers of the letter to the church at Corinth (2 Corinthians 2:13; 8:6, 16–18).

In general, divisions within the church at Corinth seem to be a problem, and Paul makes it a point to mention these conflicts in the beginning. Specifically, pagan roots still hold sway within their community. Paul wants to bring them back to what he sees as correct doctrine, stating that God has given him the opportunity to be a “skilled master builder” to lay the foundation and let others build upon it (1 Cor 3:10).

Later, he discusses immorality in Corinth by discussing an immoral brother, how to resolve personal disputes, and sexual purity. Regarding marriage, Paul states that it is better for Christians to remain unmarried, but that it is better to marry than sin. The Epistle may include marriage as an apostolic practice in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas (Peter)?"

Paul also argues unmarried people must please God, just like married people must please their spouses. The letter is also notable for mentioning the role of women in churches, that for instance they must remain silent (1 Cor. 11:2-16, 14:34-35), and the role of prophecy and speaking tongues in churches. After discussing his views on worshipping idols, Paul finally ends with his views on resurrection. He states that Christ died for our sins, and was buried, and rose on the third day according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3). Paul then asks: “Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12) and addresses the question of resurrection based on his interpretation of scripture.Throughout the letter, Paul presents issues that are troubling the community in Corinth and offers ways to fix them. Paul states that this letter is not meant to make them feel ashamed but to “admonish” them as beloved children. They are expected to become imitators of Jesus and follow the ways in Christ as he, Paul, teaches in all his churches (1 Cor. 4:14-16).

According to a writer cited by the author of the Easton's Bible Dictionary, this epistle"shows the powerful self-control of the apostle in spite of his physical weakness, his distressed circumstances, his incessant troubles, and his emotional nature. It was written, he tells us, in bitter anguish, 'out of much affliction and pressure of heart . . . and with streaming eyes' (2 Cor 2:4); yet he restrained the expression of his feelings, and wrote with a dignity and holy calm which he thought most calculated to win back his erring children. It gives a vivid picture of the early church... It entirely dissipates the dream that the apostolic church was in an exceptional condition of holiness of life or purity of doctrine."The author of the Easton's article concludes, "Many Christians today still find this letter to speak to modern-day problems within church communities."

It wasn’t so much that Paul was having trouble, it was the fact that they were constantly bombarded with so much at once (due to being a trade city) and the fact that all of them were still into Paganism, that they were going to have conflict.

They misunderstood Paul’s teachings, or perhaps used Paul’s as a suggestion to help out their Paganism. Even in the early church, there was much of this, so division within Christianity isn’t a new thing, it is very ancient if anything.

But he had to stay on message, and his biggest message was that by golly, you were born a sinner (a new concept to me) and if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and savior, you're toast. That's the modern version because it's unnatural for me to number each verse of my writings.

That wasn’t Paul’s message at all in the Corinthians. Paul was heavily addressing the divisions, and people constantly seeking their own faith in all the wrong places. Paul was speaking about God’s wisdom lying in the weakness and foolishness of the world, not in that which we hold high and mighty. He also preached of not-judging others. There is no turn or burn in any part of 1 Corinthians. It is all dealing with unity and love for God and for others, the 2 commandments of Christ. He was also correcting problems that Corinthians were doing with their liturgy.

Of course Paul comes right out and says he saw Jesus after the resurrection. That's nice. I can't figure out the politics of leaving him out of the gospels though. As oversights go, that's a biggie. All these different stories about how it happened and no mention of a key figure in the religion being in the neighborhood. The whole gospel resurrection story told in the writings of Paul is built on and embellished in the gospels but they leave him out. I find this strange, but it proves nothing. Nor does it disprove anything.

What politics are you talking about? The Gospels did not record every record of Jesus’ life, because they weren’t around Jesus all the time. They even admit that there were many things Jesus did, but they decided not to write it anyway.

They don’t mention Paul, because they have never met Paul. If I’m incorrect, point it out, but this is pulling hairs out to make some sort of conspiracy where there is none.

You are impressed that christianity succeeded, and I am not. You are so impressed that you believe what you read in your bible. And I do not. Christianity had several attributes that apparently helped it along, despite the fact that it was and is just as false a religion as jainism an scientology.

1: Christianity was big on caring for the poor. Though somehow lost to modern American fundamentalists, this was very appealing to early peoples, because like today (post housing bubble), most folks were poor. You can counter and say of course god cares for the poor. And I can counter and say he sure drowned a lot of poor folks once. But the humans in christianity at that time took the lessons of Jesus to heart, including the importance of the impoverished. Kindness worked in their favor.

So, what does this prove exactly? Christianity was always about caring for the poor, the rich, others etc. Just because somebody say they care, doesn’t mean you are going to win converts. Look at Islam for example and it’s beginnings for a rebuttal of this claim.

2: Christians proselytize. They always have. Though they diss science whenever it's convenient, the invention of the doorbell was probably seen as divine intervention. And though early christians had none to ring, they still went around spreading the word. What Paul was doing by taking his religious teachings our of Judea was not a normal thing. Romans might chop up your kids and rape your wife, but they didn't run around insisting that you get all hot and bothered about Minerva and Apollo. Most religions of the time respected other cultures gods, even as they beat them into submission and enslaved them. But not the christians.

We are talking of Biblical times, not Roman Catholic times. You apparently don’t know much of the times when these guys existed. They were literally criminals who’s lives were on the line, all because of what they were preaching. Yes, they were spreading the word, that is a commandment by Christ. They were not forcing their views on anybody. If anybody rejected, they just swept the dust off their feet, and went away.

If you look at these guys lives (including Paul’s) some of them were arrested and imprisoned for believing what they did. Jesus was accused of blasphemy due to claiming to be the Son of God, which is why He was arrested.

I forgot, but the majority of the 12 had the worst ends of their lives. A few of them (including Peter) suffered crucifixion as well, and this was the worst punishment one could have at the time.

Look at Stephen, who was stoned to death for simply spreading the word. He was the very 1st Christian Martyr after Christ resurrected. If you look at the settings for Christianity at that time, the faith did not look glamorous like today, and most of the people who converted, were actually skeptical or like you guys, thought the Apostles were looney.

So, Christians being fierce warriors scaring people into conversion, is not possible, especially since you could just call up the Romans and get these people killed, since they were wanted men. I even have a newspaper article of people discovering a cave Christians would hide in to avoid persecution.

There were far better reasons to reject Christianity back then, than we do today, but they still came.

3: They were flexible. Paul was pretty adamant about things like sex. If you're gonna get laid you'd better get married. But if you want to eat foods dedicated to false gods, go for it. No biggie. And later on, when christians were trying to get people hooked on one god and one god only, they gave in and started creating patron saints, one for sailors and one for sheepherders, etc., to make up for the lost gods that provided similar assistance. I find it ironic that that christians are more flexible than yogi's.

Please, let us stay within Biblical times, and not within the times of Constantine or Roman Catholicism.

Until Catholicism, they were not like this concerning the saints. Yes, they showed respect to other fellow believers, yet they never worshipped any of the saints. They didn’t even canonize any saints. Roman Catholicism’s practice of this did not come from the Bible or any of the teachings of the Apostles.

Now, the reason why Paul was flexible on the foods dedicated towards other gods was because some individuals believed eating the food was a sin, and others believed it is not a sin. Paul was showing that there are things within everyday life that religious teaching doesn’t seep into, like what kind of meat to eat, and in addition, individual interpretations to what you view. The meat sacrificed to idols, was showing that the meat itself was a worthless argument, but as each have their own views, respect the views of others. What kind of meat you eat isn’t a sin, but if it bothers another, then respect their wishes and don’t eat the meat or cause infighting with each other, because the argument would be a pointless one.

It shows that humans create their own boundaries, that Christianity did not put on, but both people’s views were correct and valid, despite being a complete 180 from each other.

For the sex thing however, this was something far different. I’m a little surprised you even used this since you yourself are married under the Christian version of Marriage, and have children as well. So, from that, you by default will have the upper hand on the point of marriage and sex over me. Sex, wasn’t just a breeding activity, it is an affection of love, and it is also a bond. Sex, is a form of passionate submission to another. Unlike other activities, like what kind of steak you should eat, sex can and has the ability to destroy entire civilizations, and it has. The marriage, is a commitment indeed, but unlike random whoring and prostituting, marriage is also a contribution to society. Whether you prostitute or marry, your’ choice will directly affect you, and indirectly affect everybody else.

With marriage in place, it can use sex to create contributions, rather than destruction. Of course we already know Paul’s view was He preferred everyone to stay single, but He would rather see people married, then people being mass prostitutes, because you see the results of both sides, and He wanted the Corinths to thrive, not collapse.

Put 200 little kids at one end of a football field and have them race to the other. Someone is going to win. In hindsight we can all sit around, watching the YouTube video and declaring that the winner had the latest footwear offered by Nike, or the longest legs, or the most determination. But the bottom line is that someone was going to win unless they all got lost and couldn't get good directions. Some religions was going to win the religion wars, and for western civilization, it happened to be christianity.

Well, if you wish to use that as Christianity being popular in America, fine.

If you actually look at the Birth of America, in terms of ideology (not necessarily religion by some), I would say America started by Freemasonry, not Christianity, because there are attributes about Christianity, that do indeed make it so people can use it for their own benefit, instead of actually submitting to the belief.

Christianity got big not just because of people believing in this, but because there were people who saw Christianity’s power over the people, and used it for money and fame. Because humans have poor judgement, we can’t really tell who is genuine and who is the deceiver.

Remember, we are talking about Modern Day America here, not the Biblical Times.

Corinthians 1 and 2 exist because Paul was having a hard time getting his new religion to take. The church he had started in Corinth was in trouble, and dealing with many a divisive pressure. Different factions forming, and worse yet, moral principals laid down by Paul as per the teachings of Jesus were being ignored. In fairness, his effort to spread the message outside of Judea was big job. It's not surprising it didn't go well. Real religions with real gods might somehow get help from, oh, I don't know, that real god. But well-meaning but false religions (i.e., all of them) have it rougher at times. Because made up stuff lacks inherent stickiness.

So, you are saying here that if there is division or differing thoughts occur within a certain view, then it is false?

Nope. I'm saying it wasn't all that persuasive. But mainly what I was saying is that the reason Paul wrote the letters included in 1 and 2 Corinthians was because that split was happening. That was merely historical backdrop for the christians who come to our site who don't know diddly about their religion. Get used to my flippant statements. Call me on them all you want, but get used to them. I can't help myself.

Quote

If so then, I guess atheism is up the same tree Christianity is because atheists can’t agree on anything amongst themselves other than there is no proof of a God.

And you guys say Christians can’t agree on anything?

It's a good thing you're smiling when you say that, pilgrim. I should note, however, that northern irish atheists have yet to start a shooting war with irish atheists. Just sayin...

Quote

Since you wish to bring up division, let me explain the settings of Corinth and Corinthians.

... (Note: I removed a large portion of this quote to save bandwidth. It is all available in the post above.

Quote

They misunderstood Paul’s teachings, or perhaps used Paul’s as a suggestion to help out their Paganism. Even in the early church, there was much of this, so division within Christianity isn’t a new thing, it is very ancient if anything.

This is more than I really wanted to know. (Note that I smiled when I said that). I don't think anything I said contradicts what you just said, other than my editorializing, which I am wont to do. Paul's efforts at exporting this new religion were up against a mulitude of pressures, and it's not at all surprising that he had to write the letters than became the two Corinthians. You make the division sound a little more benign than the historians I have paid attention to say it was. He succeeded, which means that impresses me more than it does you. But all of this is minor. It is historical, and as a bible believer, you're sort of limited in what you can call up, historically, to back up your position. That Paul took christianity to Corinth and wrote his books of the bible is fine. I'm not disputing that.

But he had to stay on message, and his biggest message was that by golly, you were born a sinner (a new concept to me) and if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and savior, you're toast. That's the modern version because it's unnatural for me to number each verse of my writings.

That wasn’t Paul’s message at all in the Corinthians. Paul was heavily addressing the divisions, and people constantly seeking their own faith in all the wrong places. Paul was speaking about God’s wisdom lying in the weakness and foolishness of the world, not in that which we hold high and mighty. He also preached of not-judging others. There is no turn or burn in any part of 1 Corinthians. It is all dealing with unity and love for God and for others, the 2 commandments of Christ. He was also correcting problems that Corinthians were doing with their liturgy.

Paul may have been addressing problems in Corinthians, but his main message was being saved. Just about all Paul talks about, from my knowledge of the subject, is salvation. He brings up god, etc., but his stress is on salvation. How many times does he quote Jesus? How many times does he pass on the teachings of Jesus? Paul is pushing faith and grace, while Jesus stressed behaviors and deeds or actions. So Paul is more or less ignoring the actual teachings of Jesus and stressing faith and grace, something Jesus never pushed. The gospels that followed a few decades later did not get all excited about salvation either. They more accurately reflected what was by then known to be the teachings of Jesus. (It is presumed by historians that people had written down a lot of the teachings of Jesus, even though we don't have any proof that that is so. It would explain a bit about how the gospel writers knew what Jesus was purported to have said) Read Matthew 25:31-45 and show me the part where Jesus says entrance into heaven requires salvation.

Of course he wasn't dead yet so salvation hadn't been invented. But I don't see him even implying that it was going to take more than being genuinely kind and generous to go up (or wherever) once dead. Oh yea, and loving god. That's big too. But again, no mention of salvation.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote his own version of the bible, taking out the mean parts, didn't like Paul at all. He once wrote in a letter to a friend that Paul was "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus". So do keep in mind that your version of how wonderful he was isn't necessarily shared by other christians.

I don't believe any of this stuff, but the way various factions of christianity, and individual customizations of the same, cherry pick their way through the orchard that is the bible is always intriguing.

Of course Paul comes right out and says he saw Jesus after the resurrection. That's nice. I can't figure out the politics of leaving him out of the gospels though. As oversights go, that's a biggie. All these different stories about how it happened and no mention of a key figure in the religion being in the neighborhood. The whole gospel resurrection story told in the writings of Paul is built on and embellished in the gospels but they leave him out. I find this strange, but it proves nothing. Nor does it disprove anything.

What politics are you talking about? The Gospels did not record every record of Jesus’ life, because they weren’t around Jesus all the time. They even admit that there were many things Jesus did, but they decided not to write it anyway.

They don’t mention Paul, because they have never met Paul. If I’m incorrect, point it out, but this is pulling hairs out to make some sort of conspiracy where there is none.

You are correct, this claim proves, nor disproves anything.

[/quote]

My bad. I keep forgetting the internet is pretty new. Paul is apparently never mentioned in the bible outside of his direct contribution. I thought he should get a few perks out of the deal, but I concede. My concession only means that my biblical scholarship is wanting. Or I don't want it. One of those two.

You are impressed that christianity succeeded, and I am not. You are so impressed that you believe what you read in your bible. And I do not. Christianity had several attributes that apparently helped it along, despite the fact that it was and is just as false a religion as jainism an scientology.

You made the claim, so prove it.

You mean about the religion being false? If I could do that, we wouldn't need this site. If you could prove that christianity was true and your god was real, we wouldn't need this site. We need this site.

So while you're oohing and aahing of 1st Corinthians, I'm paying attention to those attributes. They include:

Sources for these claims about me?

I'm being metaphorical. This bothers bible people? I apologize. In post #2, you said:

Quote

And here is what I say. I agree they make for a good story, but unlike the faiths of others, Jesus’ entire faith (Christianity) rests on the resurrection, not even necessarily His’ life. If you can really disprove the resurrection, then you have effectively disproven Christianity.

. I re-read that when went to look at why I thought you were oohing and aahing, and I see now that you are what I assume is called a "Paulist". Or a christian, version 2. So all this salvation stuff I've been talking about is probably pretty familiar to you. I'd still love to hear why Matthew 25:31-45 is something salvationists consider irrelevant.

1: Christianity was big on caring for the poor. Though somehow lost to modern American fundamentalists, this was very appealing to early peoples, because like today (post housing bubble), most folks were poor. You can counter and say of course god cares for the poor. And I can counter and say he sure drowned a lot of poor folks once. But the humans in christianity at that time took the lessons of Jesus to heart, including the importance of the impoverished. Kindness worked in their favor.

So, what does this prove exactly? Christianity was always about caring for the poor, the rich, others etc. Just because somebody say they care, doesn’t mean you are going to win converts. Look at Islam for example and it’s beginnings for a rebuttal of this claim.

Where did Paul say take care of the poor? Is there a quote in one of his books that I don't know about? If he is a big teacher of christianity, why is he not teaching what Jesus said and did? Through word and deed. Jesus raised the dead and Paul doesn't mention it? Even you mention it. What gives? Though Paul is credited with pulling off a few miracles himself, I don't recall anywhere in the bible where Paul is teaching about the miracles of Jesus. Now I tend to assume that is because Jesus didn't do any anyway, and Paul's are made up, but if Paul was the first big christian, why was he leaving out all the good parts? Why does his message not match that of Jesus. Why does he teach that Jesus lived but not much about what Jesus said or did? Did he have an agenda? Were his old anti-christian feeling still alive inside him? Inquiring minds want to know. And I have no trouble finding christians who don't like him via google.

2: Christians proselytize. They always have. Though they diss science whenever it's convenient, the invention of the doorbell was probably seen as divine intervention. And though early christians had none to ring, they still went around spreading the word. What Paul was doing by taking his religious teachings our of Judea was not a normal thing. Romans might chop up your kids and rape your wife, but they didn't run around insisting that you get all hot and bothered about Minerva and Apollo. Most religions of the time respected other cultures gods, even as they beat them into submission and enslaved them. But not the christians.

We are talking of Biblical times, not Roman Catholic times. You apparently don’t know much of the times when these guys existed. They were literally criminals who’s lives were on the line, all because of what they were preaching. Yes, they were spreading the word, that is a commandment by Christ. They were not forcing their views on anybody. If anybody rejected, they just swept the dust off their feet, and went away.

If you look at these guys lives (including Paul’s) some of them were arrested and imprisoned for believing what they did. Jesus was accused of blasphemy due to claiming to be the Son of God, which is why He was arrested.

I forgot, but the majority of the 12 had the worst ends of their lives. A few of them (including Peter) suffered crucifixion as well, and this was the worst punishment one could have at the time.

Look at Stephen, who was stoned to death for simply spreading the word. He was the very 1st Christian Martyr after Christ resurrected. If you look at the settings for Christianity at that time, the faith did not look glamorous like today, and most of the people who converted, were actually skeptical or like you guys, thought the Apostles were looney.

So, Christians being fierce warriors scaring people into conversion, is not possible, especially since you could just call up the Romans and get these people killed, since they were wanted men. I even have a newspaper article of people discovering a cave Christians would hide in to avoid persecution.

There were far better reasons to reject Christianity back then, than we do today, but they still came.

People die for their beliefs all the time. Including many beliefs you don't have anything to do with. People are capable of taking a lot of things to heart. Not all of them can be true. Being stoned and flying into buildings are both ways to express belief. Neither is inherently impressive.

I knew a guy who drowned when he jumped in deep irrigation ditch in an effort to save his old dog that had fallen in. He believed it was that important. Also, both Paul and Peter died at the hands of Nero, who didn't like lots of people, including christians. If arrested as a christian, I have no reason to think that one could recant and be saved from death. Nero didn't roll like that.

3: They were flexible. Paul was pretty adamant about things like sex. If you're gonna get laid you'd better get married. But if you want to eat foods dedicated to false gods, go for it. No biggie. And later on, when christians were trying to get people hooked on one god and one god only, they gave in and started creating patron saints, one for sailors and one for sheepherders, etc., to make up for the lost gods that provided similar assistance. I find it ironic that that christians are more flexible than yogi's.

Please, let us stay within Biblical times, and not within the times of Constantine or Roman Catholicism.

Until Catholicism, they were not like this concerning the saints. Yes, they showed respect to other fellow believers, yet they never worshipped any of the saints. They didn’t even canonize any saints. Roman Catholicism’s practice of this did not come from the Bible or any of the teachings of the Apostles.

Now, the reason why Paul was flexible on the foods dedicated towards other gods was because some individuals believed eating the food was a sin, and others believed it is not a sin. Paul was showing that there are things within everyday life that religious teaching doesn’t seep into, like what kind of meat to eat, and in addition, individual interpretations to what you view. The meat sacrificed to idols, was showing that the meat itself was a worthless argument, but as each have their own views, respect the views of others. What kind of meat you eat isn’t a sin, but if it bothers another, then respect their wishes and don’t eat the meat or cause infighting with each other, because the argument would be a pointless one.

It shows that humans create their own boundaries, that Christianity did not put on, but both people’s views were correct and valid, despite being a complete 180 from each other.

You're using modern interpretations of what happened 2,000 years ago. Why am I limited? Every generation customizes their religion. In the 15th century, paintings of the tomb portrayed Jesus being guarded by uniformed Swiss army guards. That's how they made the story modern. Fundamentalist christians who follow the same basic story you are telling here cropped up in the 1970's. Believers with that general attitude (you have to be born again) were relatively rare until the resurgence of that period. They certainly had way too little political power until their growth starting in that decade.

I was giving three reasons why christianity has prospered while other religions did not. Christians want us to think it is because it is the right religion. I was giving you reasons it succeeded that have nothing to do with it being right, but rather that it was in the right place at the right time. The Paul part is irrelevant to that portion of my argument.

The fact that the catholic version of christianity is much different that the protestant version, or whatever, is not much of an argument. That christianity is so customizable has always fascinated me. All christianity had was the catholics and the eastern orthodox for centuries. But now there are tens of thousands of versions. That is not actually impressive.

Quote

For the sex thing however, this was something far different. I’m a little surprised you even used this since you yourself are married under the Christian version of Marriage, and have children as well. So, from that, you by default will have the upper hand on the point of marriage and sex over me. Sex, wasn’t just a breeding activity, it is an affection of love, and it is also a bond. Sex, is a form of passionate submission to another. Unlike other activities, like what kind of steak you should eat, sex can and has the ability to destroy entire civilizations, and it has. The marriage, is a commitment indeed, but unlike random whoring and prostituting, marriage is also a contribution to society. Whether you prostitute or marry, your’ choice will directly affect you, and indirectly affect everybody else.

With marriage in place, it can use sex to create contributions, rather than destruction. Of course we already know Paul’s view was He preferred everyone to stay single, but He would rather see people married, then people being mass prostitutes, because you see the results of both sides, and He wanted the Corinths to thrive, not collapse.

First of all, I had one kid when I wasn't married, and one when I was. Two different women. I live in Montana, and all you have to do to be married is say you are and the state recognizes it. That's how my marriage happened. No ceremony. It was done for tax purposes, or it wouldn't have happened. And that one is over. I am currently a happy man.

You also have a very romantic version of the history of marriage. Marriage and love were not connected until very recently in the history of western civilization. Marriage was for convenience, or for making alliances, or for survival. Love was a bonus when it happened, but it usually wasn't a component. People got married long before christianity came along, and the variations on the marriage theme that exist in different cultures is rather astounding. As an idealistic version of what marriage is, your description is pretty good. In the real world, is it useless. If it's so great, why are the divorce rates higher in the fundamentalist south than the liberal northeast?

I hope you find someone, fall in love, get married and live happily ever after. But if that happens, you will at some point notice that it's no big deal. Unless you survive it.

All sorts of societies have set standards for marriage. It is not exclusive to christianity. And I assume the reasons for marriage in India and China and in the Americas were pretty much for the same reasons that you outlined above. You're not the only naive one on the planet.

Put 200 little kids at one end of a football field and have them race to the other. Someone is going to win. In hindsight we can all sit around, watching the YouTube video and declaring that the winner had the latest footwear offered by Nike, or the longest legs, or the most determination. But the bottom line is that someone was going to win unless they all got lost and couldn't get good directions. Some religions was going to win the religion wars, and for western civilization, it happened to be christianity.

Well, if you wish to use that as Christianity being popular in America, fine.

If you actually look at the Birth of America, in terms of ideology (not necessarily religion by some), I would say America started by Freemasonry, not Christianity, because there are attributes about Christianity, that do indeed make it so people can use it for their own benefit, instead of actually submitting to the belief.

Christianity got big not just because of people believing in this, but because there were people who saw Christianity’s power over the people, and used it for money and fame. Because humans have poor judgement, we can’t really tell who is genuine and who is the deceiver.

Remember, we are talking about Modern Day America here, not the Biblical Times.

My point was that christianity is big because some religion was probably going to be big. And it's big in Europe as well as in North and South America. And that it's success has nothing to do with it's legitimacy, but rather it's good fortune to be the fastest runner, so to speak.

You are of course right about many using the power of christianity for the purpose of making money, etc. So you're not a naive as I thought. And christianity is not the only source of power and greed and selfishness either. Business and government and organized crime and corruption all play the same game. I'm not comparing the Lutheran Church or Even Oral Roberts to the mafia, but any time money or power is available, someone will be there to take charge. Religion (and not just christianity) provides one of those paths to success that we all wish didn't exist. The main reason poor people need help is because there are so many out there willing to make people poor in the first place. Today and 2,000 years ago.

The messages of social justice Jesus is said to have given were timely and actually valuable. Once you get into the miracles and the resurrection you've moved past the useful. Paul ignored huge portions of what Jesus said and then added features to the religion that wre never mentioned by the Son.

I see this as evidence that there is nothing behind religion but stories. You see it as proof that the whole thing really happened. Go figure.

Anyway, in Paul you have someone who says he saw Jesus rise from the dead and someone who introduces the concept of salvation from your sins to the mix. Many a christian does not like that message, and feel it is a distortion. Many other christians like it just fine. But liking or disliking something doesn't do anything to verify the subject matter. Dying for something doesn't verify it. For me, the gospels and the works of Paul are only stories. As I said somewhere else, nothing in the bible matches what I see in the real world. Petty bickering over how to get into heaven included.

Paul may have been addressing problems in Corinthians, but his main message was being saved. Just about all Paul talks about, from my knowledge of the subject, is salvation. He brings up god, etc., but his stress is on salvation. How many times does he quote Jesus? How many times does he pass on the teachings of Jesus? Paul is pushing faith and grace, while Jesus stressed behaviors and deeds or actions. So Paul is more or less ignoring the actual teachings of Jesus and stressing faith and grace, something Jesus never pushed. The gospels that followed a few decades later did not get all excited about salvation either. They more accurately reflected what was by then known to be the teachings of Jesus. (It is presumed by historians that people had written down a lot of the teachings of Jesus, even though we don't have any proof that that is so. It would explain a bit about how the gospel writers knew what Jesus was purported to have said) Read Matthew 25:31-45 and show me the part where Jesus says entrance into heaven requires salvation.

If we are going to go by this, Jesus’ message was also on Salvation.

How many times does He quote Jesus? From all the books that have a claim that Paul wrote these books, I counted 8 times, not including repetitions.

How many times does Paul pass on the teachings of Jesus? Way to many to count. He constantly went out and preached unto the Gentiles, to the Jews, to the fellow Apostles, etc. He was imprisoned for passing on the teachings of Jesus.

Paul is pushing faith and grace, while Jesus stressed behaviors and deeds or actions. So Paul is more or less ignoring the actual teachings of Jesus and stressing faith and grace, something Jesus never pushed.

From Matthew:

8:10 And hearing it Jesus was filled with admiration, and said to those that followed: Verily I say to you, not even in Israel have I found so great faith.

8:26 And he says to them: Why are you fearful, O you of little faith? Then he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.

9:22 But he turned and saw her and said: Daughter, take courage; thy faith has saved thee. And the woman was saved from that hour.

9:29 Then he touched their eyes, saying: According to your faith be it done to you.

14:31 And Jesus immediately stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and said to him: O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?

15:28 Then Jesus answered and said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done for thee as thou wilt. And her daughter was restored to health from that hour.

16:8 But Jesus perceiving it, said: Why reason among yourselves, O you of little faith, because you took no bread?

17:17 And Jesus answered and said, O generation unbelieving and perverse, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you; Bring him hither to me.

17:20 He said to them: Because of your little faith; for verily I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard, you shall say to this mountain: Be removed hence to that place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible for you.

From Mark:5:34 And he said to her: Daughter, thy faith has saved thee: go in peace, and be well of thy scourge.

9:19 And he answered and said to them: O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? Bring him to me.

9:22 And he has often thrown him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if in any way thou canst, have pity on us and help us. 9:23 But Jesus said to him: What is this “If thou canst”? All things are possible to him that believes.

10:52 Jesus said to him: Go, thy faith has saved thee. And he immediately received sight, and followed him in the way.

11:22 And Jesus answered and said to them: Have faith in God.

From Luke:

7:9 And when Jesus heard these things he was astonished at him; and turning, he said to the multitude that followed him: I say to you, not even in Israel have I found so great faith.

7:50 But he said to the woman: Thy faith has saved thee, go in peace.

8:25 And he said to them: Where is your faith? But being afraid they were astonished, saying one to another: Who then is this, that he commands both the winds and the water, and they obey him?

8:48 But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith has saved thee; go in peace.

8:50 But Jesus hearing it answered him: Fear not; only believe, and she shall be saved.

9:24 For whoever will save his life, shall lose it; but whoever may lose his life for my sake, he shall save it.

9:41 And Jesus answered and said: O generation faithless and perverse, how long shall I be with you, and bear with you? Bring thy son hither.

17:6 But the Lord said: If you have faith as a grain of mustard, you might say to this sycamine tree: Be uprooted and be planted in the sea, and it would obey you.

17:19 And he said to him: Arise and go: thy faith has saved thee.

18:42 And Jesus said to him: Receive sight: thy faith has saved thee.

19:9 And Jesus said to him: This day has salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham; 19:10 for the Son of man has come to seek and save the lost.

22:32 but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. And thou, when thou hast turned to me, strengthen thy brethren.

From John:

3:15 that every one that believes in him may have life eternal. 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes on him might not perish, but have life eternal. 3:17 For God sent not the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. 3:18 He that believes on him is not condemned: he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.

4:25 The woman says to him: I know that Messiah comes, who is called Christ: when he has come, he will tell us all things. 4:26 Jesus says to her: I that speak to thee am he.

5:24 Verily, verily, I say to you, that he that hears my word and believes on him that sent me has life eternal, and comes not into condemnation, but has passed out of death into life.

5:34 but I receive not testimony from man, but these things I say that you may be saved.

6:29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent.

6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that whoever sees the Son and believes on him may have life eternal, and I shall raise him up in the last day.

6:47 Verily, verily, I say to you, he that believes has life eternal.

12:47 And if any one hear my words and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

20:27 Then he says to Thomas: Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach thy hand, and put it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing. 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God. 20:29 Jesus says to him: Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that, though not seeing, have yet believed.

So, do you want to try that accusation again? Every Scripture above quote’s Christ’s words.

Of course he wasn't dead yet so salvation hadn't been invented. But I don't see him even implying that it was going to take more than being genuinely kind and generous to go up (or wherever) once dead. Oh yea, and loving god. That's big too. But again, no mention of salvation.

Read above. Jesus mentions plenty on salvation as well. If anything, Jesus was a bigger advocate of faith/grace/ and salvation than Paul ever did.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote his own version of the bible, taking out the mean parts, didn't like Paul at all. He once wrote in a letter to a friend that Paul was "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus". So do keep in mind that your version of how wonderful he was isn't necessarily shared by other christians.

So. What does Thomas Jefferson have to do with the debate? We are debating Jesus Christ and His validity, historical accuracy, and the 3(4) L’s about Him. We are not debating whether Paul was liked or disliked by a certain sect of Christians. Just because Paul is liked or dislike, doesn’t change anything, nor history.

I don't believe any of this stuff, but the way various factions of christianity, and individual customizations of the same, cherry pick their way through the orchard that is the bible is always intriguing.

I believe it, but I find it just as, if not more amusing that atheists do exactly what they criticize Christians of doing, and not just that, but an even greater volume and degree than the Christians they are pointing at.

You are impressed that christianity succeeded, and I am not. You are so impressed that you believe what you read in your bible. And I do not. Christianity had several attributes that apparently helped it along, despite the fact that it was and is just as false a religion as jainism an scientology.

You made the claim, so prove it.

You mean about the religion being false? If I could do that, we wouldn't need this site. If you could prove that christianity was true and your god was real, we wouldn't need this site. We need this site. [/quote]

No, prove to me I’m impressed that Christianity succeeded, because I really am not. Prove to me that because of this false impression I believe in what the Bible says.

Also, we don’t need the site for proving nor disproving anything. It’s a site for atheists to come and discuss about religion and science. Christians don’t have all the answers, but neither do atheists either.

So while you're oohing and aahing of 1st Corinthians, I'm paying attention to those attributes. They include:

Sources for these claims about me?

I'm being metaphorical. This bothers bible people? I apologize. In post #2, you said:

Quote

And here is what I say. I agree they make for a good story, but unlike the faiths of others, Jesus’ entire faith (Christianity) rests on the resurrection, not even necessarily His’ life. If you can really disprove the resurrection, then you have effectively disproven Christianity.

. I re-read that when went to look at why I thought you were oohing and aahing, and I see now that you are what I assume is called a "Paulist". Or a christian, version 2. So all this salvation stuff I've been talking about is probably pretty familiar to you. I'd still love to hear why Matthew 25:31-45 is something salvationists consider irrelevant. [/quote]

It was going back to the above, not necessarily that statement alone.

A Paulist? Salvationist? Never heard of that before. I just call myself a follower of Christ. Leave the labels and denominations to the political side of the churches. I myself despise the politics of religion.

Matthew 25:31-45

31 But when the Son of man shall have come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory; 32 and there shall be gathered before him all the nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and he shall place the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the king say to those on his right: Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom that has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me to your homes; 36 I was naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying: Lord, when saw we thee hungry and fed thee? or thirsty and gave thee drink? 38 And when saw we thee a stranger and took thee to our homes? or naked and clothed thee? 39 And when saw we thee sick or in prison and came to thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say to them: Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me. 41 Then shall, he say to those also on the left: Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire that is prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave, me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not to your homes; naked, and you clothed me not: sick and in prison, and you visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying: Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and ministered not to thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying: Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

There is nothing irrelevant about this. This agrees with everything that the Bible says. I had no idea there were Christians who disagree with this. Guess you learn something new everyday.

Nowhere does it say entrance into Heaven requires salvation. It mentions neither salvation nor Heaven. The context of this is: this is the last day, judgment day if you will. It is showing off the golden rule sort to speak (what you do to others, you do to God, and it comes back to you). It is showing that because an individual was compassionate towards people, they are compassionate towards God, and the selfish were all about themselves, and treated people as such. Them being evil and ill towards people, showed that they were ill towards God.

The ones that are compassionate, will go into eternal life (not heaven). The selfish, evil, vile, and wicked ones, will go into eternal punishment (which we all know is death, which is eternal, and is cessation of existing).

All who Truly love and follow Christ, will bear this mark of compassion and love on them. You can never know a True Christian from a False Christian, but this can at least show you who False Christians can be.

Where did Paul say take care of the poor? Is there a quote in one of his books that I don't know about? If he is a big teacher of christianity, why is he not teaching what Jesus said and did? Through word and deed. Jesus raised the dead and Paul doesn't mention it? Even you mention it. What gives? Though Paul is credited with pulling off a few miracles himself, I don't recall anywhere in the bible where Paul is teaching about the miracles of Jesus. Now I tend to assume that is because Jesus didn't do any anyway, and Paul's are made up, but if Paul was the first big christian, why was he leaving out all the good parts? Why does his message not match that of Jesus. Why does he teach that Jesus lived but not much about what Jesus said or did? Did he have an agenda? Were his old anti-christian feeling still alive inside him? Inquiring minds want to know. And I have no trouble finding christians who don't like him via google.

Paul’s words weren’t poor and rich, but rather strong and weak. The message is still the same, just different wordings.

Paul is and did teach what Jesus said and did. You even quoted me one the Corinthians verse I quoted, which is already one example of Paul preaching on the Words and Miracles of Christ. You told me one example yourself and you are questioning this?

Nothing Paul preached contradicted what Christ taught. Paul’s teachings are Christ’s teachings. You’ll have to show me where they don’t add up, because they compliment each other perfectly.

This debate is about Jesus Christ, not about how likable or unlikable Paul is.

People die for their beliefs all the time. Including many beliefs you don't have anything to do with. People are capable of taking a lot of things to heart. Not all of them can be true. Being stoned and flying into buildings are both ways to express belief. Neither is inherently impressive.

I knew a guy who drowned when he jumped in deep irrigation ditch in an effort to save his old dog that had fallen in. He believed it was that important. Also, both Paul and Peter died at the hands of Nero, who didn't like lots of people, including christians. If arrested as a christian, I have no reason to think that one could recant and be saved from death. Nero didn't roll like that.

You're using modern interpretations of what happened 2,000 years ago. Why am I limited? Every generation customizes their religion. In the 15th century, paintings of the tomb portrayed Jesus being guarded by uniformed Swiss army guards. That's how they made the story modern. Fundamentalist christians who follow the same basic story you are telling here cropped up in the 1970's. Believers with that general attitude (you have to be born again) were relatively rare until the resurgence of that period. They certainly had way too little political power until their growth starting in that decade.

Context. That is something that is heavily missing from both sides of the argument for both Christians and Atheists.

Anybody is twisting anything and everything to get anything to mean whatever they want it to mean. This is why I decided to go with the earliest complete Bible known to Man, and why I choose only to dwell in the early debut Christian history, and not any of the money sucking political bs called Christianity today. I think the dwelling on the money sucking political bs is why there are so many problems today, and just about every argument on this site and beyond I’ve heard (with the exception of a very select few), is a product of the modern mainstream bs, and not the early church. I see Christianity’s debut, if brought about today, would actually correct just about every problem atheists have with Christianity, and Christians would just believe and not become intolerant zealots who want to shove a Bible down a non-believer’s throat. They would just leave people alone instead of borderline stalking unbelievers and just let them do their thing instead.

I was giving three reasons why christianity has prospered while other religions did not. Christians want us to think it is because it is the right religion. I was giving you reasons it succeeded that have nothing to do with it being right, but rather that it was in the right place at the right time. The Paul part is irrelevant to that portion of my argument.

I will agree the possibility is there. Remember that Mormonism and Islam were also a success, but were so at very differing times than Christianity. But I agree, there is that possibility, but I believe it was because of Christ, that Christianity succeeded.

The fact that the catholic version of christianity is much different that the protestant version, or whatever, is not much of an argument. That christianity is so customizable has always fascinated me. All christianity had was the catholics and the eastern orthodox for centuries. But now there are tens of thousands of versions. That is not actually impressive.

It is an argument whenever the views that are being argued corresponds with 1 particular branch of Christianity, and that 1 branch is being used to paint the rest with a broad brush. Trust me, not all Baptist churches are like Westboro Baptist Church.

First of all, I had one kid when I wasn't married, and one when I was. Two different women. I live in Montana, and all you have to do to be married is say you are and the state recognizes it. That's how my marriage happened. No ceremony. It was done for tax purposes, or it wouldn't have happened. And that one is over. I am currently a happy man.

I apologize for the misinterpretation, and I thank you for the correction. I am glad you are currently a happy man. It is always great to hear somebody is doing good.

You also have a very romantic version of the history of marriage. Marriage and love were not connected until very recently in the history of western civilization. Marriage was for convenience, or for making alliances, or for survival. Love was a bonus when it happened, but it usually wasn't a component. People got married long before christianity came along, and the variations on the marriage theme that exist in different cultures is rather astounding. As an idealistic version of what marriage is, your description is pretty good. In the real world, is it useless. If it's so great, why are the divorce rates higher in the fundamentalist south than the liberal northeast?

Correction to be made. My romantic view of marriage is dealing with the as you said, the modern Christian version of marriage. Even the Bible shows that back in the day, Polygamy was the proper marriage, and that marriages were arranged at birth by their parents rather than by love or friendship like today. I know the history of marriage, and my thoughts on marriage deal only with the modern view of it, but I can’t help but feel overall Christianity was responsible for the modern view of marriage.

As I said, I don’t need to dwell into the politics of certain views. The divorces happen because not many people Truly mean their vows anymore. It is all just a phase to most people.

I don’t need the input, because my parents have only married 1 time (to each other), and they are still married, and we are still a great family. Yes, every family has problems, but nobody used it as an excuse to divorce. My life testimony disproves my ideologies of marriage are useless. I see my view of marriage work 1st hand, so I don’t care what politics say, I know it can last and lead to a fulfilling life. With that being said, marriage isn’t for everybody.

My point was that christianity is big because some religion was probably going to be big. And it's big in Europe as well as in North and South America. And that it's success has nothing to do with it's legitimacy, but rather it's good fortune to be the fastest runner, so to speak.

I will at least agree on the latter half of the 1st sentence. Concerning popularity, Europe more and more is becoming a Secular Continent. There was even the thread by someone on here who was speaking of the way Christianity works in Sweden, then just about most of my bands I listen to are from either Norway, Sweden, and Finland, I can somewhat testify Christianity is not doing so well in Europe.

North America, I really don’t need to explain. We already know mostly over here, you either have the zealots, or the latest fashion trend concerning religion. Otherwise NA is probably one of the most secular countries on the planet, as it was originally intended ironically.

South America, is actually heavily into occultism and the old African tribal religions. Because I said that, and this is on religion and not Christianity I will agree with you on that.

If you want major Christian, the only Continent I’ve heard like this nowadays is Australia. Other than them, Christianity is pretty much dying off on it’s own, and you have spots of great Christianity, but no overwhelming like Australia.

You are of course right about many using the power of christianity for the purpose of making money, etc. So you're not a naive as I thought. And christianity is not the only source of power and greed and selfishness either. Business and government and organized crime and corruption all play the same game. I'm not comparing the Lutheran Church or Even Oral Roberts to the mafia, but any time money or power is available, someone will be there to take charge. Religion (and not just christianity) provides one of those paths to success that we all wish didn't exist. The main reason poor people need help is because there are so many out there willing to make people poor in the first place. Today and 2,000 years ago.

This I will agree with. I find nothing to disagree with, but they do rub off of each other hand in hand. Notice a requirement to become President of the US is to say you are Christian. Then, our current “Christian” president took over 8 million jobs away from it’s own people, using their money to bail out big businesses, only to turn around and those big businesses gave themselves a raise.

So, Christianity is not intended for what you say, but yes, you are correct here. People always wish to seek power, fame, and money. People can use Truth and Lies to obtain it. Because of this, I see People as the problem, not the religion within itself.

The Christian Bible does say somewhere, that the love of money is a root of all evil afterall.

The messages of social justice Jesus is said to have given were timely and actually valuable. Once you get into the miracles and the resurrection you've moved past the useful. Paul ignored huge portions of what Jesus said and then added features to the religion that were never mentioned by the Son.

Anyway, in Paul you have someone who says he saw Jesus rise from the dead and someone who introduces the concept of salvation from your sins to the mix. Many a christian does not like that message, and feel it is a distortion. Many other christians like it just fine. But liking or disliking something doesn't do anything to verify the subject matter. Dying for something doesn't verify it. For me, the gospels and the works of Paul are only stories. As I said somewhere else, nothing in the bible matches what I see in the real world. Petty bickering over how to get into heaven included.

But liking or disliking something doesn't do anything to verify the subject matter.

I agree heavily with this. My question is, why are you using like or dislike to verify subject matters like Paul and His Letters?As I will say, the concept of Heaven is a concept and problem of the modern day church bs, and it is the modern church as to why you don’t see anything in the Bible in the real world.

Read the Bible, you’ll see it is about Life and Death, and Revelation goes into grand detail about this with the Judgement day, and how it all works out.

There is no getting into Heaven. It is living forever, and I don’t believe living forever means that we cease to learn or eat or enjoy any of the pleasures we have on this earth, as this earth will be where eternity is. We will still continue to learn and grow and experience, the only real difference is that there will be no sin. That does not mean there may not be any conflict, but that means there will be no sin.

Since we are speaking of eternity, if not for art and artistry, after a few sextillions of years, I do see what you guys could be referring to about life becoming nothing more than a stagnation. I think there may be the possibility of this happening, and then we of course would want to die off of that, but we don’t know what eternal life is like, so what can I say about it? I will agree that it seems no matter what happens, you will die by stagnation or die by annihilation, and whichever way you choose, death is the final outcome. One death is a guarantee and one death is only a guess, an assumption.

I think that is why I love art and artistry, because even the most stagnate of stagnation, art keeps things going. Keeps things fresh and new. Brings forth knowledge wisdom and intelligence.

Anyways, I heavily apologize for the delay. Finally had the time to make the reply.

This is going to be a very private debate, because everyone else has lost interest. I'll come up with a reply in the next couple of days though. You messed up a little bit of the quoting and it's too late to fix it (darn you mods!), but I think I can figure it out.

This is going to be a very private debate, because everyone else has lost interest. I'll come up with a reply in the next couple of days though. You messed up a little bit of the quoting and it's too late to fix it (darn you mods!), but I think I can figure it out.

It's fine with me. I don't think the fault is neither yours or mine, but because I don't have a lot of time for this, and this causes everyone to wait a week before even seeing anything.

If you need me to fix it by re-posting the portions, let me know. I hate it when the quotings get messed up.

DoL and I have agreed to bring this debate to a close. He's busy, I'm helping a family member with a serious medical problem (things are going well for her though, so don't worry...), and it obviously isn't working as a debate anyway. Sorry this wasn't more exciting. We both had higher hopes for this thing.